View Full Version : School me on optics for PRS-style long range
Ok, so I'm fantasizing about a PRS-style rig.
And for this kind of a setup, it seems like the following specs are what most people are going with:
- Click-adjustments in .1 MILs with a MIL-based reticle (not sure I get the ins and outs of all the different reticles)
- Magnification that is around 5-20x with options up to 25x or higher
- Front focal plane reticle
- Zero stop adjustments
- Exposed knobs so you can dial on the fly
- ~20 mils worth of adjustment?
- How much does field of view matter?
So, in looking at a lot of the scopes that are out there, it looks like there's quite a few that match the above description, but the prices vary from ~$1500 up to almost $4000.
So what's the difference? Is there really $2500 worth of "better" in a S&B vs. a Burris? If so, what are the objective things that make those scopes better? What experiences do the folks here have with using these optics? Under what conditions do the cheaper scopes crap out or have a serious limitation?
Rucker61
02-20-2019, 11:46
I'm using the Burris XTR II 4.20x, but that's a function of good enough for the price. I've never even looked through the high end scopes.
Delfuego
02-20-2019, 12:52
Do you really want to shoot PRS/NRL/Field matches? Or just have a rifle that looks like one for occasional range days?
Simply put yes, yes & yes. They are way better. It makes a big deal. I thought I would never be that guy, now I'm him...
What's your budget? What's the rifle? What are the ranges you want to shoot?
Highly recommend you check out a bunch of scopes before plunking down the cash. Plenty of nice rigs at local matches and rarely will anyone big a Scrooge about you looking through their glass.
Your basic list of requirements is sound.
The things that matter most to me are difficult to quantify, measure and explain.
Everything I say below assumes basic reliability and perfect tracking. In the price range you stated, those should be givens.
Over the years now, I've come to value the reticle above almost everything else. A great reticle can make getting an accurate wind hold much easier to figure out under time pressure. Which one to choose is a huge topic and subject to lots of personal preference. For someone new to shooting in the wind, I quite like anything that looks like the SCR that's found in the Burris and Steiner lines. There are lots of other good ones, and quite a few bad ones.
Eyebox is a term you might not have heard yet. It's used to describe how much flexibility you have positioning your eye behind the scope. A scope with a tight eyebox will require you to be perfectly positioned behind the scope to get a good image. This can be very problematic in PRS type shooting where the goal of the stage designer is frequently to make the position awkward. A scope with a forgiving eyebox will be easier to deal with. Sadly, I've never seen anything but subjective measurements. It's difficult to compare scopes on paper.
Forgivingness of parallax adjustments is another big one for me. Mis-adjusted parallax is one of the largest sources of error for new shooters. Some scope seem to need constant fiddling with the parallax knob when changing ranges. Others are more forgiving. Having to twiddle one knob half as much as another is a big deal when you're on the clock.
Of course, everyone like good glass. The view through my high end scopes is noticeably better than the view through my mid range scopes. Mostly is just nice to have. Sometimes though, excellent glass allows you to observe environmentals like weeds moving or dust in the wind which will give you information about the wind.
Safe advice is to spend as much as you can, then add $500. Once you've determined your budget, come back here and we will barrage you with options.
Take a peek through all the scopes at Sundays PRS match in Pueblo.
You will see everything from mild to wild.
And showing and telling is always better than telling/reading.
You know, the time I was really impressed with the glass in the S&B was when I looked through your Short Dot after using my ACOG. There was a noticeable difference.
But I'm wondering, what are the other things that are important?
I think Tim's pointing out that eye box and parallax adjustment are important is a really good point, and something I hadn't considered at all.
And I'm wondering which of these things really make a difference. Basically, since I know jack about scopes and long range shooting, the number of choices seem overwhelming without much of a way to figure out what the best choice is. (I can see this is all going to end in a spreadsheet already.)
Also, what about rings? What matters when looking at those?
The eye box is a really important point. I have a cheapy Vortex Crossfire II 6-24x40 and under moderate to full magnification, you had better have your face in just the right position or you can't see anything.
Delfuego
02-20-2019, 18:44
Tracking should be #1. If it doesn't track, it's worth nothing. I really like the good glass.
Ring and base are super important too. You don't have to go crazy with those, but don't skimp. Used Badger / Mark 4 rings run about $100. Vortex Precision rings are good to at $120 new.
Take up Hoser on his offer.
Tracking is number 1 , it's a gun sight first and a telescope 2nd .
Go look at a bunch of stuff at some matches first and then spend the money . There is a lot more options now than even 5 years ago and 2k buys a lot of scope now .
The big secret in rings and bases are EGW bases and Burris XTR rings .
Grant H.
02-20-2019, 22:16
Tracking is number 1 , it's a gun sight first and a telescope 2nd .
Go look at a bunch of stuff at some matches first and then spend the money . There is a lot more options now than even 5 years ago and 2k buys a lot of scope now .
The big secret in rings and bases are EGW bases and Burris XTR rings .
This... 100x this...
I will through this out there as an additional point.
Once you get into the higher end glass, personal preference will come into play.
Some folks prefer S&B glass over other high end glass, and others prefer things over the S&B glass.
If the feature set is correct and the reliability is there, which all of the higher end glass (S&B, Steiner, Kahles, Vortex Razor HD, etc) has, then what your eye prefers is the key.
Me personally? It's really hard to enunciate, but the perception/image of the S&B reticle doesn't really work well for my eyes. I much prefer the image of my Steiners. My Razor GenII also appeals to my eyes better than the PMII that I had for a while.
Buying quality glass is worth it.
Wolfshoon
02-20-2019, 23:32
What is tracking?
Movement of scope reticle matches what is dialed in with turrets, IE: move the turret five .1 MIL clicks and the reticle moves .5 MIL. (or MOA, depends on your preferences, but turrets should always match the reticle. MIL reticle get MIL turrets, MOA reticle get MOA turrets. Most scope makers have gotten away from MIL dot reticle with MOA turrets [leupold is famous for that shit])
With a quality scope there should be no screw backlash or cheap erector springs that have to be accounted for , such as dialing 2 clicks past your target then going back 2 clicks to "settle" the reticle. With cheap scopes some ppl even "tap" the scope with something like a small hammer to make the reticle "settle". Those cheap quality scopes are still being sold, but most of the quality manufacturers have come a long ways in the past 10 years.
Tracking test is easy to do for a scope, mark a 36" piece of whiteboard every .36" (for MIL scope) and put it at 100 yards (must be level) and put your rifle scope on the center dot and dial up and down, every click of the .1MIL dial should move one and only one dot. Dial up 50 clicks and then back down 100 clicks then back up 50 clicks and you should be at your starting zero point. Mount the target horizontally for windage testing, same process. IF it moves less or more then it isnt tracking very good. Friend of mine has a crappy barska that is out over 1 MIL for 50 clicks, shows more than 6 MIL travel for what should be a 5 MIL value and does not return to original zero when dialed back. He even admits that he knows it's a crappy scope but is still running it on a 308 for some perverse reason.
To the OP, Hoser and others are absolutely correct, go to a match and see what people are using and who is winning with what equipment. Everyone I've met will let you look through their set up. Every brand seems to have their own reticle and that is a very confusing part of selecting a scope. Good news is just within the last 2-3 years great scopes have become available at price points that are affordable now.
My scope shopping check off list:
First Focal Plane (reticle changes in size depending on magnification selected)
MIL reticle and knobs, I like XMAS tree reticles but do use hash marked cross reticles also
3-6x low end to 20-30x magnification hi end variable power
Adj objective focus knob on side
10 MIL elevation/windage per turn of knob preferred
24+ MIL elevation adjustment, this usually means a 30mm or bigger main tube
Zero stop on elevation turret
Decent glass, yea I like S&B image quality, out of my price bracket, but I'm not using Barska either.
Thank you. Seems like tracking correctly should be a minimum requirement for every scope made.
Thank you. Seems like tracking correctly should be a minimum requirement for every scope made.
On snipershide, user killswitch engage built a scope tracking test setup with an I-beam, railroad tie, and welded a scope base to the beam. He then set about doing through-the-lens filming of scope tracking on a target board. The results weren't necessarily pretty for some high-end scopes, and yet one of the mid tier (Burris?) tracked flawlessly. A lot of people who paid a lot of money for their scopes got butthurt over the fact that in the end, they paid for pieces of shit.
Unfortunately, the thread was accidentally deleted when they were cleaning up from a Chinese hack.
Some of the videos are still available on his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnzE6FW3fRzpjGozQbHs8jQ/videos?shelf_id=0&view=0&sort=dd
Since I have no desire to perform tracking testing at that level, I tend to be in the camp of "reticle" importance being high. I don't care that I can see a gnat's asshole clench in HD at 300 yards if the reticle is a useless afterthought.
I'll go after a "cheaper" scope if its reticle is more useful to me than something that is "better" simply because it has better glass or a fancy brand on it. The reality is that most scopes today, even mid-tier, are good to go.
I also think of Neil. Neil was a guy I knew 10 years ago. A student at the Colorado School of Trades for gunsmithing, he had very little money and only one rifle: a .243 hunting rifle from Savage with some lower cost scope. Neil knew his rifle. Neil shot well -- better than a lot of dudes whose accessories alone cost more than his entire setup. It wasn't unusual for him to get first round hits on steel at distance in weird situations because he focused on shooting, not doohickies. Be like Neil.
ETA:
I've owned: US Optics, Vortex Razor (1 and 2 Gen), IOR (just don't), Burris, Bushnell, Nightforce, etc. I've had friends who have gone through the range of high end (higher level Leupy, S&B, Hensoldt, etc.). In the end, for me, the only thing that mattered was the reticle. I'll take a $1500 scope with a useful reticle any day over some $4k hunk of "BuT tHe SoCOM UseS It!". Cool story, Spongbob.
CavScout, so what are you running now?
On snipershide, user killswitch engage built a scope tracking test setup with an I-beam, railroad tie, and welded a scope base to the beam. He then set about doing through-the-lens filming of scope tracking on a target board. The results weren't necessarily pretty for some high-end scopes, and yet one of the mid tier (Burris?) tracked flawlessly. A lot of people who paid a lot of money for their scopes got butthurt over the fact that in the end, they paid for pieces of shit.
Unfortunately, the thread was accidentally deleted when they were cleaning up from a Chinese hack.
Some of the videos are still available on his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnzE6FW3fRzpjGozQbHs8jQ/videos?shelf_id=0&view=0&sort=dd
Since I have no desire to perform tracking testing at that level, I tend to be in the camp of "reticle" importance being high. I don't care that I can see a gnat's asshole clench in HD at 300 yards if the reticle is a useless afterthought.
I'll go after a "cheaper" scope if its reticle is more useful to me than something that is "better" simply because it has better glass or a fancy brand on it. The reality is that most scopes today, even mid-tier, are good to go.
I also think of Neil. Neil was a guy I knew 10 years ago. A student at the Colorado School of Trades for gunsmithing, he had very little money and only one rifle: a .243 hunting rifle from Savage with some lower cost scope. Neil knew his rifle. Neil shot well -- better than a lot of dudes whose accessories alone cost more than his entire setup. It wasn't unusual for him to get first round hits on steel at distance in weird situations because he focused on shooting, not doohickies. Be like Neil.
ETA:
I've owned: US Optics, Vortex Razor (1 and 2 Gen), IOR (just don't), Burris, Bushnell, Nightforce, etc. I've had friends who have gone through the range of high end (higher level Leupy, S&B, Hensoldt, etc.). In the end, for me, the only thing that mattered was the reticle. I'll take a $1500 scope with a useful reticle any day over some $4k hunk of "BuT tHe SoCOM UseS It!". Cool story, Spongbob.
I've been reading through some threads on Sniper's Hide and there's a lot of good information there. So far I've shot one match, but need to get out to shoot some more and get more experience. I'd be curious to get your opinion on what you think is a good scope to consider for purchase.
Being able to look through good glass and maybe even try it out is important, but I'm also interested in the opinions of people who've spent more on optics than I have on my last car.
CavScout, so what are you running now?
The only thing I have now is a NF 4-14 SHV F1. I got rid of all my precision guns except my SPR as I felt the investment would be better for ammo and working on carbine fundamentals. The reality for me is LR precision shooting, while fun, represented too much of a time and money investment for little practical return.
If/when I decide to get back into it, I’ll likely go Vortex or NF, depending on reticle choice in my budget. I hate touching a knob unless I’m zeroing.
I've been reading through some threads on Sniper's Hide and there's a lot of good information there. So far I've shot one match, but need to get out to shoot some more and get more experience. I'd be curious to get your opinion on what you think is a good scope to consider for purchase.
Being able to look through good glass and maybe even try it out is important, but I'm also interested in the opinions of people who've spent more on optics than I have on my last car.
It's ultimately up to you, man. Ya gotta see what's out there and offers your preferred features for your preferred budget. At the end of the day, the guy with a $5k rig who barely practices is going to get his clock cleaned by the guy with a $2k (Savage and a mid-grade Burris or Bushnell) rig that puts the 2500 extra dollars and however many extra hours into ammo, range time, and classes -- such as one w/ Brian Whalen (https://www.cprifle.com/about-us).
After tracking it's about the reticule and features you want / need . I've got / have had SB , USO , Leupold , gen 2 Razor , Nightforce , and XTR2 .
The USO is an older SN3 and the glass is on par with the Burris and after my dealings with USO never again will one make it in to the safe .
The SB , a 5-25 and a short dot are going nowhere and until something changes my mind they will both still be used all the time .
My 1 lone Leupold is a 1-8 , it's a tank and the illumination on the reticule isn't what I would like but the glass is good and it tracks .
The two gen 2 razors are probably the best balance of cost / features right now and I would definitely buy more . They are heavy but the glass is really clear and both have tracked perfectly . They are closing out the old reticules right now and can be found for under 2k .
The Nightforce ATACR is a really nice scope and retails for 3-400 more than the razor and when I went with the razor it was for the locking turrets and nothing more .
The XTR2 is really nice for the money , is it SB nice no but you can get a usable reticule in a reliable package that tracks perfect with product support you can drive to in state . The new XTR3 is supposed to be even better with much better glass but I have not seen any yet . The 2s can be had around 1k and the 3 I hear is going to be 16 - 1800 .
I'd also suggest if you hit on one you like, and if it's a company w/ a transferrable warranty/rockstar lifetime style, just buy a used one from SH. Guys on there go through scopes like crazy and some good deals can be had if one checks the For Sale section frequently.
Fentonite
02-21-2019, 19:27
...I've owned: US Optics, Vortex Razor (1 and 2 Gen), IOR (just don't), Burris, Bushnell, Nightforce, etc. I've had friends who have gone through the range of high end (higher level Leupy, S&B, Hensoldt, etc.). In the end, for me, the only thing that mattered was the reticle...
Why the hate for IOR? I have one, 2.5-10 FFP mounted on a Larue, and like it. It?s been rock solid, tracks perfectly, and I like the reticle. Granted, it?s not in the same realm as my S&B, but when I was paring down, I chose to get rid of my US Optics before the IOR (granted, for more $ than the IOR would?ve brought). I?ve heard that their service dept is a pain to deal with, but I haven?t needed them. What do I need to know?
They might have gotten better but their QC/QA was awful for a while and their 3-18 was very hit or miss. There’s better options. I wouldn’t turn one down but I doubt I’d buy one unless there was a compelling reason. In general, they don’t offer a competitive price point in my opinion.
Forgot about that one , had a 1-4 , 15 ish years ago . The lenses had a colored tinge to it which wasn't horrible but it had issues holding 0 .
The 3-18 they released 8 - 10 years ago was a total shit show with the internals in the erector shedding teeth when dialing elevation .
There is other stuff out there in the same price range without tempting fate . Seen 8 or 10 IORs take a shit over the years at SRM .
Fentonite
02-21-2019, 19:55
Here’s hoping I got their only good one!
Forgot about that one , had a 1-4 , 15 ish years ago . The lenses had a colored tinge to it which wasn't horrible but it had issues holding 0 .
The 3-18 they released 8 - 10 years ago was a total shit show with the internals in the erector shedding teeth when dialing elevation .
There is other stuff out there in the same price range without tempting fate . Seen 8 or 10 IORs take a shit over the years at SRM .
Yep. Craig Monroe and I both had the 3-18. We drove down to Raton and were doing a quick zero check before the match. I was having issues. He was having issues. Rounds all over the place. Finally mine just goes blurry. Can’t remember if his did. Both our 3-18’s ate it at the same time. So we basically drove to NM for nothing. Lol. IOR replaced them but I sold my replacement NIB and figured I’d just stay away. There were at least a few guys on SH that reported the same.
Fentonite
02-21-2019, 20:59
Looks like I’m gonna start looking for a replacement, just so you guys don’t get to say you told me so. Maybe.
If it works and you like it, I don’t see the need.
Fentonite
02-21-2019, 21:16
I’ll probably at least put it through a torture test, give it a chance to take a crap if it gonna. And I like looking for new toys...
In looking at scopes, I'm leaning towards the Burris XTR II. Either the 5-20x or 5-25x. Any thoughts on if the prices are expected to come down now that Burris is releasing the XTR III?
Tracking is number 1 , it's a gun sight first and a telescope 2nd .
Go look at a bunch of stuff at some matches first and then spend the money . There is a lot more options now than even 5 years ago and 2k buys a lot of scope now .
The big secret in rings and bases are EGW bases and Burris XTR rings .
On the scope base, for something like this, is it worth it to go with one of the 20 MIL elevated bases, or better to stick with a flat one?
Also, I see the EGW bases are very reasonably priced, which is nice.
The elevated base assists w/ increasing your erector travel starting point so you get "more" out of the erector. In other words, it forces you to zero "down" and thus increase your "up".
https://warnescopemounts.com/20moa-explained/
Right. It's my understanding that's something that's built into the base of the Ruger Precision .22 in order to get you more clicks of elevation for longer shots.
For PRS type stuff, coupled with the scopes commonly found in that world, is the additional 20 MILs a base affords you something that's a necessity, nice to have, or does it matter at all?
Bottoming out your scope is no fun. A xmas tree reticle can help in this case, but depending on various factors, it cannot hurt you unless the travel available from center is suddenly not enough to allow you to bring it on zero w/ the elevated base. At which point you have to increase your zero range and hold under on closer targets.
Some of this stuff can be mitigated with flatter shooting calibers.
Personally, I always run an elevated base.
Never a bad idea to use a base with cant built in . Depending on caliber at least 20 MOA , sometimes as much as 40 .
Cartridge-wise, I'm leaning towards something like 6CM.
20 will be fine , but if you want to play further out 30 would be better .
XC700116
02-28-2019, 21:50
Justin, definitely go with a 20 MOA Base.
And if you're interested, I have a 4-20 XTR-II SCR MIL I could probably cut you a deal on. Not in a hurry to move it but if you're interested when your rifle is ready drop me a line.
Ok, so here's a somewhat goofy plan to get me from where I am today (really dumb on the knowledge required for long range stuff, don't have a perfect rig for it) to where I'd like to be:
Get a decent scope, like the Burris 4-20x or 5-25x
Mount it on my .22
Start participating in Hoser's long range .22 match, as this seems like a good way to learn the mechanics of long range (e.g. building dope cards, learning how to dial and read wind, shooting from field positions, etc.)
In the meantime, put together the rest of the components needed for a PRS rig
Once the PRS rig is ready, move the scope from the .22 to the PRS rig
Then start competing in local PRS matches
Thoughts?
That's a great plan, Justin. You'll learn everything except recoil control shooting your .22. Just brace yourself for the cost of decent .22 ammo.
...and also be prepared to convince yourself to spend 3k+ on a duplicate .22LR rig for "low cost" training. Always made me laugh when guys on SH would post their duplicate .22 rigs as low cost trainers.
That's a great plan, Justin. You'll learn everything except recoil control shooting your .22. Just brace yourself for the cost of decent .22 ammo.
I used to shoot Bullseye pistol, so, yeah, I know Eley ain't cheap. :-)
...and also be prepared to convince yourself to spend 3k+ on a duplicate .22LR rig for "low cost" training. Always made me laugh when guys on SH would post their duplicate .22 rigs as low cost trainers.
I'm not at that level. For the .22, I think my Ruger Precision .22 should work fine for local matches. The biggest thing holding me back is lack of a decent scope...
Justin, definitely go with a 20 MOA Base.
And if you're interested, I have a 4-20 XTR-II SCR MIL I could probably cut you a deal on. Not in a hurry to move it but if you're interested when your rifle is ready drop me a line.
I appreciate the offer. PM inbound.
Yes but be prepared to pony up more cash because you won't want to get rid of the 22 when you make the switch to centerfire .
Yes but be prepared to pony up more cash because you won't want to get rid of the 22 when you make the switch to centerfire .
Rumor has it that he has had a custom action and AI Chassis laying around for several years...
Delfuego
03-04-2019, 17:39
First one is free ;)
Any of Hoser's matches (22/PRS/TAC) are the best place to start!
Tracking is number 1 , it's a gun sight first and a telescope 2nd .
Go look at a bunch of stuff at some matches first and then spend the money . There is a lot more options now than even 5 years ago and 2k buys a lot of scope now .
The big secret in rings and bases are EGW bases and Burris XTR rings .
Are these the rings you recommend:
https://www.burrisoptics.com/mounting-systems/rings/xtr-signature-rings
Are the inserts useful, or just a gimmick?
These , https://www.burrisoptics.com/mounting-systems/rings/xtreme-tactical-rings , never have liked the rings with inserts .
Also, take a look at these American Rifle Company M10 rings or ring/base combos.
https://www.americanrifle.com/shop/category/scope-rings-and-mounts-3
Sorry to bring this one back from the dead, but what's the best way to assess what height rings to buy?
The scope I have has a 50mm (~1.9 in) diameter bell on the front, so can I assume that rings with a 1" height will work?
Delfuego
06-17-2019, 11:54
1" should work .9" should work too. I run 1.10" on 56mm scope. The barrel contour also plays in, but it your not running a straight or heavy varmint your should have plenty of clearance.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.